|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,118 |
I swear to God, we can find an argument in ANY topic posted on here... -Nick
"Moore has also accused the American people of being the stupidest, most naive people on the face of the Earth. And after last weekend, he's got the box office numbers to prove it!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
bishop375
You argue that EVERY CEO of EVERY company that's EVER existed has disavowed having ANY moral or civic obligation and is motivated solely and exclusively by the pursuit of profits.
I think you're dead wrong and while there may be a few companies like that (Enron and WorldCom to name just two), the shareholders don't benefit in the long run.
Making a profit obviously should be a primary goal of every corporation. The problem with your premise is that the money-driven ego-centric CEOs who are motivated SOLELY by greed are typically mercenaries who don't give a damn about the company or the shareholders and ultimately end up lining their own pockets at the expense of the company they are supposed to serve.
Last edited by 96RedSE5Sp; 05/22/04 01:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,621
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,621 |
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I swear to God, we can find an argument in ANY topic posted on here... -Nick
LOL, nah it's just my good ol' habit to pick on Ross 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Making a profit obviously should be a primary goal of every corporation. The problem with your premise is that the money-driven ego-centric CEOs who are motivated SOLELY by greed are typically mercenaries who don't give a damn about the company or the shareholders and ultimately end up lining their own pockets at the expense of the company they are supposed to serve.
I never said they shouldn't give a damn about the company or the shareholders. I said they shouldn't be held accountable for how you raise your children, which is exactly what you're saying. You've blatantly blamed Disney for the physical and mental state of the children of this country. That is as untrue as me saying I can breathe under water.
The primary concern of ANY company is to make money, not if your little Johnny or Suzie is growing up to be a model citizen. That's the parents' jobs, NOT the companies'.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
I never said they shouldn't give a damn about the company or the shareholders.
Really?
Originally posted by bishop375:
"We have no obligation to make history.
We have no obligation to make art.
We have no obligation to make a statement.
To Make money is our only obligation ."
*edited* -Any CEO, Any Company, Any Year *edited*
Italics added by me for emphasis.
Why to you think Disney and McDonalds have extensive marketing ties with each other? Because they are extremely succesful. As a direct result of Disney's marketing efforts, millions of young kids are ingesting that crap that McDonalds passes off as food. While parents should bear the ultimate responsbility to avoid having their kids be exposed to this garbage, the fact remains that many American parents are ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on McDonalds and Disney for targeting these kids and their oblivious parents.
If tobacco companies suddenly started targeting 5 year olds with million dollar ad campaigns and product placements in cartoons, would you have a problem with that or would you simply blame parents if there was a sudden surge in the number of 5 year old smokers?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 871
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 871 |
Man!! What a thread hijack!! 
Keith W
98.5 SE Sport ATX
Lt. Denim Blue
Other car
'02 3.0 Duratec Taurus wagon
Want some real political discussions? Try
www.freeconservatives.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 839 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Why to you think Disney and McDonalds have extensive marketing ties with each other? Because they are extremely succesful. As a direct result of Disney's marketing efforts, millions of young kids are ingesting that crap that McDonalds passes off as food. While parents should bear the ultimate responsbility to avoid having their kids be exposed to this garbage, the fact remains that many American parents are ignorant and irresponsible. Shame on McDonalds and Disney for targeting these kids and their oblivious parents.
So basically, you're saying that Disney marketing at a place where lots of kids eat is.. wrong? I don't know of too many kids (I know lots) who want to go to McDonalds because there's a new Disney toy. They want to go there because its McDonalds, and they'd go for WHATEVER new toy is out or just because they like McDonalds. Its just a fun place for them.
I suppose McDonalds should instead NOT offer toys in their happy meals and NOT have fun zones and the like.. after all, wouldn't wanna attract kids!! That would be bad. Same with Disney, they should probably be promoting their stuff at the local library. Free Disney toy with your book rental.
Give it a break.
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
If tobacco companies suddenly started targeting 5 year olds with million dollar ad campaigns and product placements in cartoons, would you have a problem with that or would you simply blame parents if there was a sudden surge in the number of 5 year old smokers?
Hell yeah, if your 5 year old is smoking you're a PRETTY DAMN ROTTON PARENT!!!
Smoking is a bit different than some movies or fast food, though. Come on now. That was a pretty stupid analogy.
The Spickle
New Car: Infra Red '04 FSVT
Former Car: Black '98 CSVT, #3137/6535 "The Unluckiest car.. ever"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by bishop375:
I never said they shouldn't give a damn about the company or the shareholders.
Really?
Originally posted by bishop375:
"We have no obligation to make history.
We have no obligation to make art.
We have no obligation to make a statement.
To Make money is our only obligation ."
*edited* -Any CEO, Any Company, Any Year *edited*
Italics added by me for emphasis.
Why to you think Disney and McDonalds have extensive marketing ties with each other?
Yes, really. I never said they shouldn't give a damn. Thanks for proving my point for me. Where in that quote do I say they shouldn't give a damn? **reads again** Nope, still not there.
Why do Disney and McDonalds have extensive marketing ties? Because it makes them MONEY. Just like how George Lucas and Kenner/Hasbro have ties, just like Ford/Firestone have ties, just like Chevy/Mr.Goodwrench have ties, because they are mutually beneficial. Exclusivity makes it that much more lucrative. You take groups of people with similar interests, and you tie things in. It's simple marketing strategy. And, to blow yet another hole in your theory here, the majority of people that I know who buy happy meals are adults who are interested in collecting all the happy meal toys.
Sheesh. I guess it's impossible for you to see the blatantly obvious reasons for marketing tie-ins without you seeing a victim, or having to have an "alternate mode of thinking" so you can feel so much better for how you raise your kids. Don't get me wrong- I'm glad if you make your kids go outside and play instead of watching ANY tv, but, seriously, don't freak out when you see a company trying to sell a product. Disney and ANY toy manufacturer has a core audience of children, just like any auto manufacturer has its core audience.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 678 |
Yeah, sorry for the thread highjack, but I think this thread would have died long ago if it wasn't highjacked (not that would have been a bad thing).
The single biggest reason why I hate Eisner's Disney are the overly simplistice messages and stereotypes contained in the vast majority of its movies marketed at children:
-Attractive people are good;
-Good people are attractive;
-Ugly people are evil;
-Evil people are ugly;
-Mothers and surrogate mothers are either evil, incompetent, irrelevent or non-existant;
-History is irrelevant if it interferes with the overiding -Disney theme (Pocahantus for example);
-The themes and events in classic stories are routinely disregarded if they interfere with the overidng Disney theme (ie Tarzan)
-The live of young women are incompete unless they find a handsome and strong prince or princely-type young man to rescue them.
I could go on but other than the brilliant animation, I rarely see any contemporary Disney movie with any redeming quality for children to see.
Good movies for kids are rare but ehy are being made. Shrek, for instance is a fantastic movie with an appropriate message for young kids. The fact that its a brilliant satire of Eisner's Disney is icing on the cake. I have no problems with my kids watching Shrek and other more worthwhile movies. The massive marketing angle is disturbing but I agree that any parent with any balls just has to say no. I would never take my kids to "ShrekWorld" and if I did, I surely wouldn't be bragging about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
The single biggest reason why I hate Eisner's Disney are the overly simplistice messages and stereotypes contained in the vast majority of its movies marketed at children:
-Attractive people are good;
-Good people are attractive;
-Ugly people are evil;
-Evil people are ugly;
-Mothers and surrogate mothers are either evil, incompetent, irrelevent or non-existant;
-History is irrelevant if it interferes with the overiding -Disney theme (Pocahantus for example);
-The themes and events in classic stories are routinely disregarded if they interfere with the overidng Disney theme (ie Tarzan)
-The live of young women are incompete unless they find a handsome and strong prince or princely-type young man to rescue them.
The precedents set by Disney's films were set LONG before Eisner came into play. Ugly/Evil people go back to the Wicked Queen, Maleficent, the Demon from Fantasia, and a host of others. Can't blame Eisner for that. You also fail to point out that the easiest way to convey an air of evil is through ugliness to children. That's simply the easiest identifier. Go watch ANY cartoon ever created, and you'll see that is the truth. Going all the way back. To counteract what you're spouting here, Quasimodo was ugly and good. The point of the movie was that what's on the surface doesn't matter.
History is irrelvent in ALL the myths of Pocahontas, not just Disney's.
Themes and events are disregarded in Tarzan? Show me where. I've read all but the last couple of Tarzan books, and feel the movie was reasonably close to what the original book was, closer than any of the Johnny Weismuller garbage from way back in the day.
Women NEED a young man to rescue them? Are you talking about Cinderella (prince with glass slipper) or sleeping beauty (prince wakes her with a kiss)? Funny, those were created long before Eisner came on board. If this was the case, they would never push the "Princess Line" to girls. Seems Belle didn't need any strong prince, nor did Esmerelda in Hunchback.
As far as the surrogate mother line, go watch Tarzan again. Kala was neither evils, irrelevant, nor imcompetent, nor useless.
You're making a lot of broad generalizations that simply do not meet with their product. I'm beginning to think you've never watched any animated features produced by Disney. I think you'd have a much easier time if you didn't put so much effort into reading between non-existant lines.
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
